Pitfalls preventing bone union with EXOGEN Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound

IF 1.8 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS SICOT-J Pub Date : 2022-04-15 DOI:10.1051/sicotj/2022012
L. Hughes, J. Khudr, Edward Gee, A. Pillai
{"title":"Pitfalls preventing bone union with EXOGEN Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound","authors":"L. Hughes, J. Khudr, Edward Gee, A. Pillai","doi":"10.1051/sicotj/2022012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of EXOGEN in achieving union and common pitfalls in its use within the Manchester Foundation Trust (MFT) and Salford Royal Foundation Trust (SRFT). Method: Patients receiving EXOGEN therapy between 01/01/2017 and 31/12/2019 at hospitals within MFT and SRFT were identified using EXOGEN logbooks and hospital IT systems. An equal number of patients were included from both sites. Data were retrospectively collected from clinical documents detailing clinical presentation comorbidities, and radiographic images, determining the radiological union post EXOGEN therapy. In addition, local practices were observed and compared to EXOGEN’s standardized guidance for clinicians. Results: Fifty-eight patients were included in the primary review, with 9 subsequently excluded based on insufficient clinical data. 47% of patients achieved radiological union following completion of EXOGEN therapy. Outcomes of the 23 patients with persistent non-union were as follows – 18 were referred for revision surgery, 5 were prescribed further EXOGEN therapy, 2 refused or were unfit for further intervention, and 1 did not have a plan documented. No significant baseline differences were present in both outcome groups. However, at MFT and SRFT, rates of union with EXOGEN are below that previously published in the literature. Conclusion: EXOGEN has proven successful in facilitating union in established cases of non-union without the risk and cost associated with revision surgery. Centre outcome differences may be explained by failure to educate clinicians and patients on the correct use of the EXOGEN device, failure to standardize follow-up or monitor compliance, and must be addressed to improve current services.","PeriodicalId":46378,"journal":{"name":"SICOT-J","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SICOT-J","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2022012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of EXOGEN in achieving union and common pitfalls in its use within the Manchester Foundation Trust (MFT) and Salford Royal Foundation Trust (SRFT). Method: Patients receiving EXOGEN therapy between 01/01/2017 and 31/12/2019 at hospitals within MFT and SRFT were identified using EXOGEN logbooks and hospital IT systems. An equal number of patients were included from both sites. Data were retrospectively collected from clinical documents detailing clinical presentation comorbidities, and radiographic images, determining the radiological union post EXOGEN therapy. In addition, local practices were observed and compared to EXOGEN’s standardized guidance for clinicians. Results: Fifty-eight patients were included in the primary review, with 9 subsequently excluded based on insufficient clinical data. 47% of patients achieved radiological union following completion of EXOGEN therapy. Outcomes of the 23 patients with persistent non-union were as follows – 18 were referred for revision surgery, 5 were prescribed further EXOGEN therapy, 2 refused or were unfit for further intervention, and 1 did not have a plan documented. No significant baseline differences were present in both outcome groups. However, at MFT and SRFT, rates of union with EXOGEN are below that previously published in the literature. Conclusion: EXOGEN has proven successful in facilitating union in established cases of non-union without the risk and cost associated with revision surgery. Centre outcome differences may be explained by failure to educate clinicians and patients on the correct use of the EXOGEN device, failure to standardize follow-up or monitor compliance, and must be addressed to improve current services.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阻碍EXOGEN低强度脉冲超声骨愈合的陷阱
目的:评价EXOGEN在曼彻斯特基金会信托(MFT)和索尔福德皇家基金会信托(SRFT)中实现联合的疗效和常见的缺陷。方法:使用EXOGEN日志和医院IT系统对2017年1月1日至2019年12月31日期间在MFT和SRFT医院接受EXOGEN治疗的患者进行识别。两个地点的患者数量相等。回顾性收集临床文献资料,详细介绍临床表现、合并症和影像学图像,确定EXOGEN治疗后的放射学结合。此外,还观察了当地的实践,并与EXOGEN的临床医生标准化指导进行了比较。结果:58例患者纳入初步评价,9例患者因临床资料不足被排除。47%的患者在完成EXOGEN治疗后达到放射愈合。23例持续性骨不连患者的结果如下:18例转介翻修手术,5例接受进一步的EXOGEN治疗,2例拒绝或不适合进一步干预,1例没有计划记录。两组结果均无显著基线差异。然而,在MFT和SRFT中,与EXOGEN的结合率低于先前在文献中发表的。结论:EXOGEN已被证明能够成功地促进骨不连病例的愈合,并且没有翻修手术相关的风险和成本。中心结果的差异可能是由于未能教育临床医生和患者正确使用EXOGEN装置,未能标准化随访或监测依从性,必须解决以改善当前的服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
SICOT-J
SICOT-J ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Adapting hip arthroplasty practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: Assessing the impact of outpatient care sudden increase on early complications and clinical outcomes. Outcomes of total hip arthroplasty using dual mobility cups following failed internal fixation of proximal femoral fractures at a mean follow-up of 6 years. Prior medial meniscus arthroscopy is not associated with worst functional outcomes in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty: A retrospective single-center study with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Short-term functional outcomes of robotic-assisted TKA are better with functional alignment compared to adjusted mechanical alignment. Delayed presentation of lower cervical facet dislocations: What to learn from past reports?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1